bstempleton@watmath.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (10/09/83)
It's been stated that the effects in 2001 were a landmark, and that is certainly true - they would have been considered good ten years later. 2001 is one of the few movies I can see time and time again. The sheer beauty of the docking sequences moves me every time. But the main reason I post this is to disagree with the statement that 2001 fails in execution and production quality. This is far from the truth. People are hard put to find errors of any kind in 2001. There may be some, like liquid going down in a straw, but they are very minor. Just about every other movie you can name is full of major flaws, technical mistakes and other such errors. 2001 leaves no such taste in the mouth. Whatever you thought of the story, dialogue etc., it is one of the greatest bits of film production ever. Now on to the story. Yes, many people have to read the book to understand the story, and on the scale of "movies that can be understood completely at first sitting" 2001 loses out. But how does i do on the scale for "movies, once you fully appreciate them". -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (10/10/83)
> ...the main reason I post this is to disagree with the statement that > 2001 fails in execution and production quality. This is far from the truth. > People are hard put to find errors of any kind in 2001. There may be some, > like liquid going down in a straw, but they are very minor. Just about > every other movie you can name is full of major flaws, technical mistakes > and other such errors. 2001 leaves no such taste in the mouth. Whatever > you thought of the story, dialogue etc., it is one of the greatest bits > of film production ever. Saying that a film is great because it has no technical flaws? "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" had no technical flaws either. (Well, one; the blood that spurted out of the forty-ninth victim should have been bright red and not dark red, since the killer was cutting into an artery and not a vein...) Technical wizardry alone does not a great film make. Despite what everyone has said about the great (which it was) technical production of the film, the acting was stale, the action was virtually stagnated (one doesn't impart boredom and routine in a work of art by boring the audience). But some people are impressed by flash for its own sake. That's what makes horse races (and movie polls)... Rich [I did NOT see "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", so no flames about my (in)accuracy here, please. This was an attempt at humor, albeit a feeble one. OK?]